372 
ness is concerned, and is easily comprehended by the general 
reader, but perhaps specialists will not take to it so kindly. 
In the chapter on Coleoptera the tiger beetles are mentioned 
first and the Scolytidae last. In some recent classifications running 
from the lowest to the highest this system is reversed. 
The book is finely illustrated, containing 797 figures and six 
plates, the frontispiece (Plate I.) being colored. On page 154 is 
a picture of four grotesque leaf-hoppers sitting in a row on a grass 
blade, who rival in absurdity of expression the famous Brownies. 
Some of the illustrations include the plants on which the insects 
feed, and the food plants are also often mentioned in the text. 
Entomology as a rule does not form a conspicuous part in books 
on botany, but the botany of an entomology is a more important 
matter, many of the insects taking their names from the plants 
upon which they feed. The illustrations of the wing-veins are 
particularly numerous, and it is these, and the tables for determin- 
ing the families and higher groups, that contribute largely to the 
clearness of the book. W. T. Davis. 
Studies in Plant Deackimen Henry L. Clark. Chicago. 
1895. 
One is at a loss to know just what to say on examining this 
outline of plant analysis, for such it is, neither more nor less. 
Judging from its mechanical construction and arrangement one 
would conclude that it was intended to serve as an aid in teaching 
young children the first principles of systematic arrangement, but 
the terminology, which is that of Vines (see his recent text-book 
on botany), will at once condemn it for such a purpose. The 
terminology used would lead one to suppose that it was intended 
for the use of advanced students and specialists in botany. Any 
one sufficiently advanced to comprehend the meaning and applica- 
tion of such terms as gametophyte, apogamy, germ-plasm, body- 
plasm, microspore, macrospore, etc., etc., certainly does not require 
an outline in the study of plant types. It is detrimental to teach 
students that such outline-study is botany. It is true, the author 
recommends a “ constant use’’ of Vines’ Text Book of Botany in 
connection with this outline work, which is good as far as it goes. 
It is, however, wholly wrong to teach students that they can be- 
come systematists without having first studied morphology and 
